BACKGROUND: Geriatric conditions may predict outcomes beyond age and standard risk factors. Our aim was to investigate a wide spectrum of geriatric conditions in survivors after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: A total of 342 patients older than 65 years were included. At hospital discharge, 5 geriatric conditions were evaluated: frailty (Fried and Green scores), physical disability (Barthel index), instrumental disability (Lawton-Brody scale), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer questionnaire), and comorbidity (Charlson and simple comorbidity indexes). The outcomes were postdischarge mortality and the composite of death/myocardial infarction during a 30-month median follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-four (22%) patients died and 105 (31%) suffered from the composite end point. Through univariable analysis, all individual geriatric indexes were associated with outcomes, mainly mortality. Of all of them, frailty using the Green score had the strongest discriminative accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.76 for mortality). After full adjustment including clinical and geriatric data, the Green score was the only independent predictive geriatric condition (per point; mortality: hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36, P = .0001; composite end point: hazard ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.24, P = .0001). A Green score ≥ 5 points was the strongest mortality predictor. The addition of the Green score to the clinical model improved discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.823 vs 0.846) and significantly reclassified mortality risk (net reclassification improvement 26.3, 95% CI 1.4-43.5; integrated discrimination improvement 4.0, 95% CI 0.8-9.0). The incremental predictive information was even greater over the GRACE score. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty captures most of the prognostic information provided by geriatric conditions after acute coronary syndromes. The Green score performed better than the other geriatric indexes.
BACKGROUND: Geriatric conditions may predict outcomes beyond age and standard risk factors. Our aim was to investigate a wide spectrum of geriatric conditions in survivors after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: A total of 342 patients older than 65 years were included. At hospital discharge, 5 geriatric conditions were evaluated: frailty (Fried and Green scores), physical disability (Barthel index), instrumental disability (Lawton-Brody scale), cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer questionnaire), and comorbidity (Charlson and simple comorbidity indexes). The outcomes were postdischarge mortality and the composite of death/myocardial infarction during a 30-month median follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-four (22%) patients died and 105 (31%) suffered from the composite end point. Through univariable analysis, all individual geriatric indexes were associated with outcomes, mainly mortality. Of all of them, frailty using the Green score had the strongest discriminative accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.76 for mortality). After full adjustment including clinical and geriatric data, the Green score was the only independent predictive geriatric condition (per point; mortality: hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.15-1.36, P = .0001; composite end point: hazard ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.24, P = .0001). A Green score ≥ 5 points was the strongest mortality predictor. The addition of the Green score to the clinical model improved discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.823 vs 0.846) and significantly reclassified mortality risk (net reclassification improvement 26.3, 95% CI 1.4-43.5; integrated discrimination improvement 4.0, 95% CI 0.8-9.0). The incremental predictive information was even greater over the GRACE score. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty captures most of the prognostic information provided by geriatric conditions after acute coronary syndromes. The Green score performed better than the other geriatric indexes.
Authors: Gonzalo Luis Alonso Salinas; Marcelo Sanmartin; Marina Pascual Izco; Luis Miguel Rincon; Pablo Pastor Pueyo; Alvaro Marco Del Castillo; Alberto Garcia Guerrero; Pedro Caravaca Perez; Alejandro Recio-Mayoral; Asuncion Camino; Manuel Jimenez-Mena; José Luis Zamorano Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Rebecca S Crow; Matthew C Lohman; Alexander J Titus; Martha L Bruce; Todd A Mackenzie; Stephen J Bartels; John A Batsis Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: John A Dodson; Judith S Hochman; Matthew T Roe; Anita Y Chen; Sarwat I Chaudhry; Stuart Katz; Hua Zhong; Martha J Radford; Jacob A Udell; Akshay Bagai; Gregg C Fonarow; Martha Gulati; Jonathan R Enriquez; Kirk N Garratt; Karen P Alexander Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; David D McManus; Molly E Waring; Darleen Lessard; Milena D Anatchkova; Jerry H Gurwitz; Jeroan Allison; Arlene S Ash; Richard H McManus; David C Parish; Robert J Goldberg; Catarina I Kiefe Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2017-12
Authors: Shelli L Feder; Dena Schulman-Green; Mary Geda; Kathleen Williams; John A Dodson; Michael G Nanna; Heather G Allore; Terrence E Murphy; Mary E Tinetti; Thomas M Gill; Sarwat I Chaudhry Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Alberto Pilotto; Pietro Gallina; Francesco Panza; Massimiliano Copetti; Alberto Cella; Alfonso Cruz-Jentoft; Julia Daragjati; Luigi Ferrucci; Stefania Maggi; Francesco Mattace-Raso; Marc Paccalin; Maria Cristina Polidori; Eva Topinkova; Gianluca Trifirò; Anna-Karin Welmer; Timo Strandberg; Niccolò Marchionni Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.778